GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITEIS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "144C(5)", "253(1)", "92CA", "40A(7)", "37(1)", "43B", "43B(f)", "36(1)(va)", "80G", "80G(1)(ii)", "80G(2)(iiihk)", "80G(2)(iiihl)", "115P", "234C", "234B", "270A", "139(1)", "135 of the Companies Act, 2013", "Chapter VIA" ], "issues": "The primary issues involved were transfer pricing

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

price of shares and did not result in any real outflow or accrued liability. The failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the factual and legal sustainability of the claim under section 37(1) was treated as a serious lapse. (4) In so far as the deduction under section 80G amounting to ₹7,22,00,000/- was concerned, the learned

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

80G out of CSR expenses are in accordance with the decisions of various benches of Tribunal. Thus, the view taken by assessing officer cannot be said to be erroneous. Thus, the pre-requisite twin conditions for exercising jurisdiction under section 263 has not meet out in the present case hence we quash / set aside the order of Pr. CIT dated

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 80G for CSR expenditure and the same needs to be set aside, and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings be upheld." 16. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred by allowing the claim of gratuity expenses amounting to 200.41 crores. The additional

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer pricing adjustment that was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). APPEALS OF THE REVENUE:- 15. We shall now take up the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. Various issues urged by the revenue are summarized below:- (A) COMMON ISSUES URGED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS:- a) Reduction of claim of depreciation

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer pricing adjustment that was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). APPEALS OF THE REVENUE:- 15. We shall now take up the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. Various issues urged by the revenue are summarized below:- (A) COMMON ISSUES URGED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS:- a) Reduction of claim of depreciation

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer pricing adjustment that was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). APPEALS OF THE REVENUE:- 15. We shall now take up the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. Various issues urged by the revenue are summarized below:- (A) COMMON ISSUES URGED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS:- a) Reduction of claim of depreciation

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Transfer pricing adjustment that was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). APPEALS OF THE REVENUE:- 15. We shall now take up the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. Various issues urged by the revenue are summarized below:- (A) COMMON ISSUES URGED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS:- a) Reduction of claim of depreciation

FIRMENICH AROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22, related to export of finished goods and royalty payments. The assessee has also claimed a deduction under Section 80G

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA of the Act on 16.07.202, who passed an order dated 27.01.2022 without proposing any adjustment to the arm’s length price. 3. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2022. During following additions and disallowances: i. Disallowance of deduction under section 80G

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

price.\n3. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read\nwith section 144B of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2022. During\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer\nexamined various claims made by the assessee and made the\nfollowing additions and disallowances:\ni. Disallowance of deduction under section 80G\nThe Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had incurred

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ABM KNOWLEDGEWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as\nit is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the\nPrincipal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner,—\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which\nshould have been made

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

section 80HHC /80HHE etc. there is\nspecific provision to exclude from the \"Profit of the Business\", the other\nincome such as commission, brokerage, interest, rent etc. However,\nthere is no specific exclusion while computing deduction under section\n10A/10AA/10B of the Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions,\nit is clear that, what is exempted is not merely the profits

FIRMENICH AROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Transfer Pricing adjustments made for export of finished goods and royalty payments for technical know-how for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Additionally, there is an issue regarding denial of deduction for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses under Section 80G

B. ARUNKUMAR CAPITAL & CREDIT SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far\nas it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the\nPrincipal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner,—\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which\nshould have been made

PASHUPATI CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

80G of\nthe Act. Hence the assessment order suffers from lack of enquiry and\nExplanation 2 of section 263 of the Act is attracted in the case of the\nassessee and the jurisdiction of section 263 of the Act has been rightly\nexercised by the Ld. PCIT.\n12. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties, we\ndeem